Help! I hate new format!
Answers
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: Oh I agree! It's very annoying!0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: Whoever led this project should be taken off. I am for the changes, but this is a full blown, slap to the face changes!0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: It doesn't fix the issue.0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: Slows down the temple work....0
-
Irvin Mark Scott said: This has to be the biggest April fool of all time. The system is totally useless, and no Ill never get use to the new system. We must be playing an adult game of hide and seek. Are there no adults in charge of this train wreck. Please return the old system until you can produce a better system.
Older individuals were confused on the old now , this really. Small type, mind numbing rabbit holes. What a waste of resources don't fix whats not working just throw another useless bone to the users. What a waste0 -
Robert Lee Isbell said: It won't go away. It's here to stay, because they don't listen to the users.0
-
Robert Lee Isbell said: I hear you, Howard, but It has been addressed and nothing was fixed before the full release. I am for changes, but changes that minimize the disruption of the work. This isn't it.0
-
rotkapchen said: Turns out that Discussions is now 'unformatted'. All line feeds, returns are ignored and displayed in a single output.
This should be an easy fix, and again is a VERY BASIC error that should have been caught in formal testing (which does not appear to have occurred).0 -
Pioneer42 said: I know as i have been on this program for years, they did it to stop people from corrupting the lines by editing nonstop garbage data from websites and social pedigrees. As most users are not using proofs treating there ancestors like they are some kind of toy instead. But the new interface just needs coloring and the old history button. but yes rather bland and oldtime. 2018? Church only hires people with degree usually, ridiculous.0
-
m said: Discussions are now UN-READABLE.0
-
rotkapchen said: I actually found one of mine from 2016 that actually had my name on it...alas, I have no access to an 'edit'.
The punch list on this release is worthy of a rash of firings (which we know will never happen -- but would in any other company).0 -
rotkapchen said: Jeff: The behavior you mention is EXACTLY how the PID and the Name used to function.0
-
rotkapchen said: Well, he hasn't shown his face here yet, but here was an 'official response' on another conversation specifically about Sources:
Tyler Peterson (Web Development Manager) 36 minutes ago
Thank you for your feedback about sources. You are not alone! A number of people would like to change the treatment.
We will continue to refine and test our designs to try and make it as useful for as many people as we can.0 -
Pioneer42 said: I complained to them about the word wrapping years ago, they fix it but it always creeps back up over and over and over0
-
Paul said: Haven't had time to check out rotkapchen's point about Discussions, but believe some problems (including them all now being credited to "FamilySearch") have now been resolved. Still unable to edit my own items, though.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: This thing was "discovered" in the Beta site and when word got out, many folks started looking at it. Many issues were raised but I'm not sure a whole lot of credence was given to them as a lot of the issues are now what are being complained about.0
-
Paul said: I believe the "Comment" link was meant to be "Edit" as it produces exactly the same behaviour as clicking on "Add Comment" and it is hardly logical to have a two links (to the "Enter a discussion comment" box) so close to each other. So just another bug, I guess, which the engineers will address asap.0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Has there ever been evidence of effective market studies at FamilySearch? Oh wait, they don't sell the product so they don't really need them, right0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: So they MISSED a few PIDs with a particularly good enhancement. Things are looking up!0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Microsoft tried doing this in Windows and for their phones. That's why Windows 10 has all that iconic garbage in it. Now the phone is dead and the OS is left with a bunch of phone specific trash in it.
I would much rather them make the website consistent across the website rather than consistent with phone apps0 -
0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Yea, there is either no in-house expertise in Publishing and User Interface optimization, or there are some significant political aspects to how priorities are being juggled there. I'm pretty perplexed as well how some of these things are happening0
-
rotkapchen said: Worse, I JUST created a discussion today (others did not have this problem), and when I went back to edit it the function was NOT there.0
-
B.F. Randall said: Very good points - better stated than my op. The audit function is far more clunky0
-
rotkapchen said: Indeed, now I JUST created a discussion and as soon as it posts, the edit function is missing.0
-
B.F. Randall said: It seems like a busy-work project to justify somebody's salary - change for the sake of change, not in the interest of improving core functionality.0
-
JEB said: Yes, we know have to have two windows and more than one tab. Before, however, I only needed one tab to see both sources and details! Besides, I usually have 6-8 tabs open for other purposes - my email, websites with information or other genealogy programs online. Now, I have to have even more tabs open to just to use FS. Why is that an improvement?0
-
Jeff Wiseman said: Yes, that is one way to get around the problem which has just been created. Unfortunately I usually have a separate window with the source linker and source images in that other window's position.
No, the easiest way to accomplish this was when the sources were colocated on the page with the vitals that they supported. I.e., the "old" way.0 -
B.F. Randall said: On the bright side, I am no longer addicted to Family Search.0
-
rotkapchen said: Yes, the ownership issue has been resolved.
Nope, anyone needs to be able to edit their own posts. Comment does not provide that specific function. It's still a design flaw.0
This discussion has been closed.